On September 6, 2017, in
Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC, No. 2D16-4430, the Florida Second DCA reversed a trial court’s
dismissal of a plaintiff’s odometer fraud case against an auto dealership.
The trial court dismissed the case as a sanction against the plaintiff
vehicle purchaser for spoliation of evidence, based on as finding that
although the plaintiff had not willfully disposed of the vehicle she had
a duty to preserve the direct evidence in the case and failed to so when
the vehicle was repossessed.

The Second DCA cited the threefold inquiry for the imposition of spoliation
sanctions articulated in
League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 391 (Fla. 2015): the court must determine whether: (1)
the evidence existed at one time, (2) the spoliator had a duty to preserve
the evidence, and (3) the evidence was crucial to an opposing party’s
being able to prove its prima facie case or a defense. The Second DCA
determined that the defense failed to prove that the vehicle had in fact
been destroyed or lost, noting that the defense had simply relied on the
fact that the vehicle had been repossessed without any showing that it
was in fact unlocatable or destroyed.

The Second DCA additionally noted that it was not self-evident that the
plaintiff was required to prevent a nonparty from rightfully possessing
the vehicle to preserve the vehicle, especially when the defendant knew
the vehicle's identification number and with the exertion of any effort
could have located and examined the vehicle.

Finally, the Second DCA noted that to dismiss a case based solely on prejudice
to the movant, the spoliated evidence must be so crucial as to completely
prevent the movant from defending itself, not merely prevent the movant
from defending itself completely. The Court accordingly reversed the dismissal
of the case and remanded the case to the trial court for further fact
finding as to the status of the vehicle, with a specific instruction to
the trial court that dismissal would in any event not be an appropriate
remedy unless it appears that the alleged spoliation of the vehicle fatally
prejudiced the defense of the case.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.